is it a weird coincidence that this also describes Al Gore?
from the L.A. TIMES opinion page:
By PAUL JOSEPHSON
Some skeptics criticize the plans of the Bush administration to ignore conservation, start drilling for oil in pristine parks and renew nuclear reactor construction with a program so aggressive it would put the Russians and the French to shame. I think these plans don't go far enough, especially concerning nuclear power.
With the right mix of geography, hubris and uranium, we can be energy self-sufficient and forget about conservation entirely.
Over the next 10 years, let's build hundreds of 1,000-megawatt nuclear power stations in Wyoming. This would end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
Building so many simultaneously would lower capital and labor costs and, in 10 years, make serial production of reactors possible. Wyoming has a high unemployment level, so construction of scores of reactors will provide thousands of jobs. It also has plenty of open space, so it's a win-win situation.
Some critics worry that nuclear power will remain costly, even if we gut the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set the highest safety standards in the world. They point out that most reactors have reached the end of the operating lives, have never ran as efficiently or cheaply as promised and will soon be decommissioned. They claim that old reactors, with the spent fuel that has accumulated since the 1960s, have created a multibillion dollar clean-up and waste disposal problem that will have to be left for another administration to solve. And they obsess about the difficulty of providing workable evacuation plans in the event of an accident.
But, hey, we've come a long way since Three Mile Island. Anyway, Wyoming is sparsely populated, so there would be only minor health risks in the event of an accident, and mostly to coyotes, wolves and bears.
Just imagine: Given the population densities and geology of Wyoming, we could even site nuclear fuel fabrication and waste storage facilities in the same spot. Let's create National Nuclear Park, bringing technology and nature together in a way that satisfies conservationists, tourists and businesspeople alike. A triple-win situation! ...
for more, see: http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010517/t000041257.html
from the LAT letters to the editors:
How dare the world kick us off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Are we not the country that teaches our children that murder is wrong by executing killers? Are we not the country that puts guns in the hands of all our disgruntled, disenfranchised and unstable citizens? Are we not the country that sends our friends and family to prison to be raped and ruined for minor drug offenses? Are we not the country that denies our AIDS and cancer victims a drug that provides relief and may help them live longer?
Can't the rest of the world see us for the compassionate, Christlike people we are?
Christopher Huskin, Placentia
Re: "A Surprising Civil Rights About-Face for Ashcroft," May 13: I find U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's stay of the Timothy J. McVeigh execution thick with irony, considering Ashcroft blocked Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White's nomination to a federal district judgeship under a similar circumstance. White stayed a Missouri execution to ensure that the condemned received fair treatment under law, only to have Ashcoft label White as pro-criminal and against prosecutors during a later Senate confirmation hearing.
So using the McVeigh stay of execution as an example of Ashcroft's about-face on civil rights is hardly comforting since a judge as worthy as White was so brutally denied a federal bench.
David Glaubke, Encino
Re "Sanctimony Is His Strong Suit," Commentary, May 13: I would like to thank John Balzar, who put into words some of my anger and disgust with Ralph Nader. The only thing I would add to the list of damage Nader has done to the causes he claims to fight for are the over 100 judicial nominations for lifetime appointments to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, President Bush will make. This should ensure that issues that Nader says he believes in--like the environment, workers rights, minority rights, consumer protection, etc.--will be set back 50 years, and all the progress we have made in these areas will be lost.
Twenty or 30 years from now, when we still have sitting federal judges installed by the man Nader put in the White House, our grandchildren will live with the full impact of Nader's true legacy.
Thomas Patrick Joy, San Diego
The blameless Democrats continue to condemn Nader for their loss because, perhaps, it's so much easier than producing a candidate who merits our votes. Al Gore bent over backward to pander to Miami Cubans and Christian fundamentalists who wouldn't vote for him if he ran as a Republican, but he didn't bother to make an appeal to people who would describe themselves as liberal. Gore can run again, and I won't vote for him again.
Joel Mielke, San Diego
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
